ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-lockdomainname-dt] MP3 / Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings / 27 September 2012 at 14:00 UTC

  • To: Lock Domain Name <gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] MP3 / Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings / 27 September 2012 at 14:00 UTC
  • From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:07:39 -0700

Dear All,

The next UDRP Domain Name Lock Working Group teleconference is scheduled on 
Thursday 04 October 2012 at 1400 UTC.

Please find the MP3 recording & Chat Transcript of the UDRP Domain Name Lock 
Working Group teleconference held on Thursday 27 September 2012
at 1400 UTC at:

On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar/#sep

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master 
Calendar page:

Alan Greenberg, ALAC (Vice-Chair)
Laurie Anderson, RrSG
Matt Schneller - IPC
Celia Lerman Friedman, CBUC
Lisa Garono, IPC
Kristine Dorrain, NAF
Faisal Shah, individual
Jonathan D. Tenenbaum, RrSG
Michele Neylon, RrSG (Chair)c
Luc Seufer, RrSG
Randy Ferguson - IPC
Volker Greimann - RrSG
David Roache- Turner - WIPO

Hago Dafalla, NCUC
Gabriela Szlak, CBUC

Staff Support:
Marika Konings
Berry Cobb
Nathalie Peregrine

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Thank you.
Kind regards,


GNSO Secretariat

Adobe Connect Chat transcript:

  Marika Konings:Welcome to the UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting of 27 
September 2012


  Yetunde:Am i suppose to be hearing anything?

  Marika Konings:Hi Yetunde - the meeting has not started yet.

  Marika Konings:It starts at 14.00 UTC (in 45 minutes approx.)

  Marika Konings:You will need to dial into the conference bridge in order to 

  Yetunde:ok thanks. i will come back later

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Luc Seufer has joined the call

  Laurie Anderson:Good morning!

  David Roache-Turner:Afternoon

  Marika Konings:The meeting with the ccNSO is tentatively scheduled for 
Wednesday 17 October from 10.20 - 10.45

  Laurie Anderson:Afternoon David :)

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Kristine Dorrain has joined the call

  Marika Konings:http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34245

  Marika Konings:Thursday 18 October from 9.00 - 10.30 local time.

  Michele Neylon:http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34187

  Laurie Anderson:I will call in

  Michele Neylon::)

  David Roache-Turner 2:Missed the hand show, sorry, but will be at Toronto

  Luc Seufer:All saints day, it may affect particpation ;-)

  David Roache-Turner 2:still no steak knives though, sorry

  Marika Konings:If you are not able to participate on 1 November, please let 
me know so we can determine in advance whether we'll have sufficient attendance

  Kristine Dorrain:I stepped away for a moment...which item are we on?

  Michele Neylon:50 page 13

  Laurie Anderson:Seems irrelevant how a registrar locks the domain name as 
long as it is ensured to prevent specific things ie cancellation, transfer, 
expiration, change of registrant.

  Celia Lerman:I agree.

  Matt Schneller:There is a general obligation to keep WHOIS data current.  
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/advisory-10may02-en.htm.  See the 
language under "B"

  Michele Neylon:dead link


  Matt Schneller:the period got tacked onto the url, sorry

  Luc Seufer:Just to be clear, do we all agree that no matter the definition we 
come up with, it will be superseded by article 8 of the UDRP policy?

  David Roache-Turner 2:The principle obligation under UDRP para 8 is to not 
transfer to another registrant or registrar during a pending UDRP proceeding.

  David Roache-Turner 2:Any definition should give simple, practical effect to 
paragraph 8.

  Luc Seufer:I know but we still have to abide by the exceptions it create

  Luc Seufer:(we: registrar)

  Matt Schneller:8a. Transfers of a Domain Name to a New Holder. You may not 
transfer your domain name registration to another holder (i) during a pending 
administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Paragraph 4 or for a period of 
fifteen (15) business days (as observed in the location of our principal place 
of business) after such proceeding is concluded; or (ii) during a pending court 
proceeding or arbitration commenced regarding your domain name unless the party 
to whom the domain name registration is being transferred agrees, in writing, 
to be bound by the decision of the court or arbitrator. We reserve the right to 
cancel any transfer of a domain name registration to another holder that is 
made in violation of this subparagraph.

  Luc Seufer:that's the "unless" part I was referring to

  Luc Seufer:registrars

  David Roache-Turner 2:registrar - the UDRP

  David Roache-Turner 2:Also important to bear in mind that the UDRP defines 
mutual jurisdiction by reference to the holder of the domain name at the time 
of filing with the provider

  David Roache-Turner 2:Exactly

  Kristine Dorrain:+1 on mutual jurisdiction

  Matt Schneller:I agree, though, Luc - our definition should say that mid-UDRP 
transfer to a new holder who or which provides written agreement to be bound by 
the decision is one of the permitted reasons for a temporary unlock, for 
clarity.  Ditto with the 8b registrar exception.

  Luc Seufer:@Matt - good I just wanted to have that clarfied.

  David Roache-Turner 2:Agree - need to be clear what the exceptions are, and 
to include exceptions which reflect practical need (e.g. settlement in up to 
25% of UDRP cases, up to 20% involving privacy/proxy registration services)

  Matt Schneller:FWIW, I've never seen this sort of transfer with written 
consent to be bound by the decision.  Has anyone else?

  Laurie Anderson:that is strange

  Laurie Anderson:very

  Kristine Dorrain:Matt:  early in my tenure here, we had one, maybe two of 

  David Roache-Turner 2:change agreed in writing under 8a only relates to court 
proceedings and arbitration, not UDRP - just to note.

  Kristine Dorrain:Yes, I came to that same conclusion shortly after I started, 
hence, no more of these.  :)

  Luc Seufer:Hum... I consider UDRP proceedings as  arbitration proceedings but 
I may be wrong

  Matt Schneller:That's how I've always read "arbitration" too, although I 
can't say that I've thought about it much before now

  David Roache-Turner 2:arbitration confidential and not appeallable to court, 
UDRP published decisions which do not extingusih court otions

  Luc Seufer:@ David any link to this definition?

  Kristine Dorrain:And throughout hte UDRP, the process is referred to as an 
"administrative hearing."

  David Roache-Turner 2:generally understood definition of arbitration...also 
as a matter of construction, the paragraph 8(a) refers earlier to UDRP, and 
subsequently to arbitration in a different context

  Volker Greimann:see the recent reverse hijacking finding by a Texas? court 
against the City of Paris

  Matt Schneller:This will be important to clarify so our definition matches 
the obligations of the UDRP.  We're about to end this call, but it's probably 
worth contining this on the mailing list

  David Roache-Turner 2:yep (to both)

  Luc Seufer:agreed

  David Roache-Turner:http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/arbitration/what-is-arb.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy